356 replies to this topic

[warner2]

Reno Blade, on 29 May 2014 - 04:40 AM, said:

You mean like the LRMs and ERLL?
When LRMs got buffed, everyone cried.
And ERLL are in a good place, but no match for such builds, because of beam time.

Agree, LRMs are an option for this. I think the fact that the map is random contributes towards LRMs not being used in that role. For those players who play in leagues that will allow teams to know the map in advance next season, or hell for that matter in PGIs own tournament, LRMs may see more use as a way to suppress on larger maps (when you know you are on Alpine or whatever).

ERLL don't produce enough knock to really be able to suppress and disrupt aim, and the beam duration I think is too long, yes. Perhaps they could give ERLL some more knock/impulse, then. I just think giving the pulse lasers more knock/impulse would be a good differentiator and give them an interesting role.

[Gallowglas]

Koniving, on 29 May 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

There's other ways too without doing a cone of fire. Play in 3rd person. Especially in a Stalker, Raven, Shadowhawk, Kintaro, Hunchback, Firestarter, etc.

Notice how the crosshair moves?
Move at different speeds.
Notice if the mech jiggles, the crosshair jiggles.
If the mech hobbles, the crosshair hobbles.
If the mech limps, oh god is the crosshair useless!

Wouldn't it only be fair if that was also true for first person?
We'd have no need for cone of fire or random chance or even delayed convergence.

That's probably the best idea I've seen thrown out.

[Koniving]

Gallowglas, on 29 May 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

That's probably the best idea I've seen thrown out.

Would you believe that despite how that idea praises 3rd person (for having a crosshair system based on mech movement that increases and decreases accuracy by body movement without ever removing pinpoint; a perfectly ideal thing for first person), it got deleted from third person's announcement?

And frequently deleted in later threads about pinpoint accuracy (because it shows how unfairly superior first person is despite how it's asking/suggesting that we implement that in first person to increase the 'skill' quotient of the game)? o.o;

Edited by Koniving, 29 May 2014 - 08:23 AM.

[Reno Blade]

Thoradin, on 29 May 2014 - 07:47 AM, said:

Ok, most of these fixes seem fine (in a general tweaking sort of way). Do feel this just shifts the meta in a slightly different direction each time. Which TBH is also fine as people have fun tweaking there builds.

Couple of things which are seriously wrong with missiles though:

1) Whats the current status on splash damage? I'm assuming its still absent? (God I hope so...)

2) Impulse / Screen shake : ideally this should wholly be based on damage taken over time (short duration like .5 sec) NOT based on a specific weapon type. Why on earth does the screen shake so much when 5 LRM missiles hit a mech? And this balancing also shows it, and SRM2 has the same impulse as an SRM6 !! WHY? (what makes 4 dmg the same as 12?)

I'd expect to get a big shove being hit by an AC20 round, why as much or more from an LRM missile (doing approx 1 dmg). Thats probably an exaggeration (its difficult to test...).

It just sets the game up for abuse through the use of chain firing these special impulse weapons, this denies the opposition from playing as the cockpit shakes about. The mechanic should be a general one for all weapons, big alpha? Big screen shake.

Afaik impulse x damage is the amount of shake.
For a SRM2 and SRM6 to have same impulse just means, if you get hit by 6 missiles its 3x as strong as it is if you get hit by 2.

warner2, on 29 May 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

Agree, LRMs are an option for this. I think the fact that the map is random contributes towards LRMs not being used in that role. For those players who play in leagues that will allow teams to know the map in advance next season, or hell for that matter in PGIs own tournament, LRMs may see more use as a way to suppress on larger maps (when you know you are on Alpine or whatever).

ERLL don't produce enough knock to really be able to suppress and disrupt aim, and the beam duration I think is too long, yes. Perhaps they could give ERLL some more knock/impulse, then. I just think giving the pulse lasers more knock/impulse would be a good differentiator and give them an interesting role.

Lasers have 0 impact/impulse.
On one side, it helps to underestimate a target (4-6 LLaser can hurt a lot if ignored = not twisting or taking cover).
On the other side, without the impulse/shake, you won't have any problems shooting back if getting hit by a laser "boat".
(also a reason to mix your loadouts)

[Itsalrightwithme]

If a brawler can close the distance, then the brawler reaps significant benefit from this patch. But the question being left out is, what does it take for a brawler to be able to close that distance, and what can the brawler do while it's trying to close that distance? I do not know the answer to this question and therefore I'm not so sure that the changes are all positively good for brawlers. I have a feeling the changes actually hurt all-rounder mechs.

Regardless, I am eager to find out the impact of these changes.

[SolCrusher]

Thank you for bringing balance to the Autocannon world. After the AC2 range reduction I was hoping all ACs would get the 3x removed and be closer to Table Top values. I think this will bring up the level of skill required to use them!

Please give us some PPC splash damage, just do 5 to the hit location and the rest spread to other locations.

And could you consider putting R&R back in?

I have 119mil CBills just sitting there because I have nothing to do with them. June 17th I'll have plenty to spend my CBills on because I'm purchasing some Clan mechs now!

Thank you!

[Wildstreak]

Mystere, on 28 May 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

LOL!

Quoting this just so I can Like the NCIS headslap again.

clownwarlord, on 28 May 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

For my games, the second would be, "Find the ECM Mech still capping."

[Rhialto]

Paul Inouye said:

It was also found out by the community that the impulse on the SRM/4 was out of line with the other SRM systems.

Hey, that was me here! It took a while for such a tiny edit...

[Rhialto]

Dark Radiance, on 28 May 2014 - 04:27 PM, said:

Paul, can you give us any update on Flamers? There was something mentioned about buffs or at least balance changes to them back when the Ember came out but no changes have been made. Do you think they're performing up to par after all?

I haven't read all the thread yet so I don't know if there is a reply about this but that's something I would also like to know... because after the firestarter introduction, with most of them coming with flamers by default, we don't see any of those using the flamers on the battlefield so maybe flamers don't work like you intended?

[skill gap]

I love seeing ballistic ranges finally coming down to 2x ranges but I'd prefer to see strikes reduced to 30 damage per shell rather than 35. Even at 30 damage we'll still be spamming them non-stop.

[Stormwolfe13]

Paul Inouye, on 28 May 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

I've seen this thrown around a few times now so let me respond to it.

There are a total of 9 different builds of MWO on my machine... all at varying stages of completion of new features.

In 7 of these specialized builds, I can turn on specific debug tools that allow me to see exactly what's happening in the game simulation which is something you will never be able to determine in production (live build). I can also dynamically tune things as the game is running in these builds which is also something that is impossible to do on the live servers.

I do play the game, just not on production where I don't have the tools that let me see exactly what's going on in the game engine. Plus I do randomly play now and then on production and I do spectate players quite a bit when I'm not at work.

And remember, PGI is not a huge company where I sit in my office isolated from the team and just messing about doing this or that. I'm very hands on with the dev team and don't have a lot of time to head up features and play the game during the average workday.

Paul.. your answer sucks............. I seriously doubt playing in your isolated special builds gives you an accurate depiction of how the changes affect the game in the greater arena of the community. Playing in a vacuum is pointless for determining the impact of the changes. Also as long as LRMs are so overpowered.. and yes they are.... then this game will bleed to death as it has been ever since those changes were implemented. Does any weapon besides LRMs allow you to shoot enemies that while you are completely hidden? No. Does any weapon besides LRMs allow you to shoot targets that you yourself can't acquire? No. Do you think that new players coming into the game (if indeed there are any) will enjoy themselves enough to stay and play and pay if they get pounded into the dirt within the first 2 minutes by LRM boats every time they drop in a match? No.

Counters to LRMs are ECM which only 5 mechs (and not one of them a heavy mech) in the entire game can use and AMS which was nerfed when the LRMs were buffed. And don't try to say they were buffed because the buff given was a significantly lower percentage than the buff to the LRMs and therefore is a de facto nerf. When will this company understand that most people want a fair and balanced fight. Almost every move you make seems to significantly reduce the role of brawlers. WHY?

All these statistics and figures mean NOTHING.. the only thing that means anything is if players are having more fun or less fun. And most that I talk to are NOT. Ask any clan, unit, or group leader how many people have stopped playing due to the stupid LRM buffs implemented and I bet most will tell you that a significant portion of their teams have stopped playing or barely play at all.

Until these issues are addressed (as well as others) my money will stay in my wallet.

Edited by Stormwolfe13, 29 May 2014 - 09:42 AM.

[Expired]

Destructicus, on 28 May 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

The AC nerfs may seem all fine and dandy on paper, but it's going to make it that much harder for brawlers to approach meta builds since we won't be able to suppress and close in on them as effectively.
This was not the most effective way to go about combating the meta.

I think its a necessary change. Otherwise the IS-AC's would be much much better than the upcoming Clan-AC's, since Clan-AC's will not do point-damage, right?



All around some nice changes - do appreciate most of them. Most of all the Strike-Nerf.
Would be even more perfect if you nerf the PPC one day, so we can say bye-bye to the current meta-snipers (of course some other meta will follow).

I've been thinking about changing the point-damage when it comes to ppc's. It would be awesome if 6 Points (or 7) of the PPC's damage was point-damage and the other 4 Points of damage would affect a random body-part attached to the hit body-part.

For Example: If you hit an Arm, the arm takes 6 Take and the Side-Torso takes 4 as well.
OR: If you hit the CT, the CT takes 6 damage and one of the Side Torsos or one Leg takes 4 Damage as well.
...just some of my thoughts.

Oh! And a minor LPL-Tuning would be nice. Maybe a lil more range.

[PoLaR]

Cool, is it PPC's turn yet?

[Imperius]

PoLaR, on 29 May 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

Cool, is it PPC's turn yet?

1.5 years per feedback nerf

[Haroldwolf]

Here is my observation...

If MWO was a GAME rather than just a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER you wouldn't have to be tweaking the weapons so much. That is because the incentive to win would be complete tasks/objectives/scenarios rather than just blowing up up the other mech.

Edited by Haroldwolf, 29 May 2014 - 10:30 AM.

[AdultPuppetShow]

So does this mean you're going to increase the projectile speed of the AC20 and AC10 in accordance with the fact that they won't be useful for sniping any more anyway, and to make them more effective against faster mechs at close range?

Edited by AdultPuppetShow, 29 May 2014 - 10:31 AM.

[TygerLily]

AtomCore, on 28 May 2014 - 10:25 PM, said:

Why arty is 35?! Pilot cabin is 33 max. Make them 30-32 already!

Good point, 30 would be nice. Although with a larger spread, there's less change of a headshot.

[Leigus]

All good changes. No complaints here.

[Smudge504]

i'm going to see how these changes feel before I start commenting, but i'm excited to see how this turns out. but what I really want to know is the balance for clan weaponry.

what will CPPCs perform like? how much damage will a cLL or cERLL produce?

[Thoradin]

Reno Blade, on 29 May 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

Afaik impulse x damage is the amount of shake.
For a SRM2 and SRM6 to have same impulse just means, if you get hit by 6 missiles its 3x as strong as it is if you get hit by 2.


Lasers have 0 impact/impulse.
On one side, it helps to underestimate a target (4-6 LLaser can hurt a lot if ignored = not twisting or taking cover).
On the other side, without the impulse/shake, you won't have any problems shooting back if getting hit by a laser "boat".
(also a reason to mix your loadouts)

Hmm I prefer the idea of getting shake from all weapons (some less than others) rather than 0 or very little from most. It gives a bit more impetus to doing something about the incoming damage and a more 'realistic' feel as tons of armour gets shot off the mech...

If you are right about the impulse values then why would there be different values / delivery system? (though admittedly at least they are the same) Surely it'd be the ammo that has the impulse value (1 srm or 1 lrm)? If you are right then LRM's REALLY need that impulse lowered. Being hit by a constant stream of lrm5's makes doing anything impossible. It doesn't 'feel' right.